Just to be fair, I won't accuse you of stereotyping a very large and diverse segment of the world population. I will just assume that your personal experience with Christians has been, well, less than pleasant.

I've met them, too. Maybe I've even been one of them; I hope not.

I don't think you mean that EVERY Christian is weird, AND arrogant, AND hypocritical. Maybe they just have one of these ugly traits, maybe two, maybe all three, maybe more! Whatever the case, it seems you have had enough bad experiences with Christians to repel you from ever wanting to be one.

You're not the only one to be skeptical of Christians. Mark Twain said, "If Christ were here, there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian."

What I want to do with this particular page is to explain what basic, real differences there are between (true) Christians and non-Christians. But I would also like to explain how it is that some who claim to be Christians truly ARE weird, arrogant, and/or hypocritical.

Charge #1: Weirdness

(part one: perceived weirdness)

After hearing Jesus predict His upcoming death and resurrection, many of His listeners said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to Him?" (John 10:20)

When the apostle Paul (who wrote much of the New Testament) was explaining his Christian conversion and the death and resurrection of Jesus to King Herod Agrippa II, he was interrupted by the Judean governor Festus, who said, "You are out of your mind, Paul! ... Your great learning is driving you insane."

Notice that the reason the unbelievers thought Jesus and Paul were weird was not because they were acting irrationally or spouting schizophrenic absurdities, but because they were describing the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. To this day, to believe and preach Jesus' resurrection is enough to bring charges of religious delusion from the secular, "intellectual" community.

In 1 Corinthians 1:18-29, Paul explains this further:

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe ... God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things ... so that no one may boast before him." (emphasis mine)

Though the resurrection of Jesus is a unique event, it is still a historically documented and evidenced event, for those who are willing to examine the evidence. This is definitely not a fantasy, a myth, a fable, or a religious delusion.

To get back to Paul's statement to the king, when Festus called Paul "insane," Paul responded by saying, "I am not insane ... What I am saying is true and reasonable." The historical validity of the resurrection is still "true and reasonable" to this day!

(part two: real weirdness)

The problem is, when some Christians find out that the Bible says that they will be misunderstood and mistreated by the world, they figure that it's their responsibility to be as bizarre as possible "for Jesus." These people often believe that the more "unworldly" (weird) they act, the more spiritual they must be.

Maybe you've even been to a church where the people acted downright wacko. Believe it or not, that's getting to be quite a popular type of church these days. I won't get into all the issues of tongue-talking, slain-in-the-spirit, holy laughter, barking, convulsing, etc. However, I do want you to see the apostle Paul's thoughts on "tongues" in church meetings (however, this could easily be applied to all these supposed "spiritual manifestations"):

"If the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? .... Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:23, 40)

As for the personality characteristics of a truly spiritual person, Paul writes:

"The fruit of the Spirit is ... self-control."

That should do for now; let's move on:

Charge #2: Arrogance

(part one: perceived arrogance)

Paul once wrote a disciplinary letter to the Christian church at Corinth (this letter is now known as 1 Corinthians). They were doing a lot of nasty, un-Christian things; for example, they were hoarding food and getting drunk at church, and they were proud of the fact that there was incest among some members. After Paul wrote to tell them that these things should not be so, many responded by saying, "Who does he think he is, telling us what to do in our church? How arrogant!" (2 Corinthians 10:10, my own very loose paraphrase)

In our society, it is generally considered arrogant to voice one's moral principles, especially if they happen to come from the Bible. But for a Christian, the Bible is THE source of moral guidance. If a Christian makes a moral statement that is based on biblical teaching, he or she is not automatically guilty of acting "superior" to everyone else. In fact, a consistent Christian would not only point out the difference between right and wrong but they would also freely admit that they are just as sinful as the next guy. In other words, to proclaim what God says is right or wrong is not automatically the same as arrogance.

On the other hand, however ...

(part two: real arrogance)

Some people figure that since they are Christians, or perhaps because they go to a certain church, or because they know a lot of the Bible, or because they have a good family life, or because they don't do certain "bad" things (like smoke or drink), or because they dress in a way that is more "godly" than everyone else, or because they have had certain "spiritual" experiences that others haven't had, that they are better than everyone else. That is real arrogance. God hates it, and every true Christian should also hate it.

Paul had many excellent credentials he could have flaunted in front of others in the church (Philippians 3:4-6). However, he believed that all of his rich ethnic heritage and superior religious background ultimately added up to a "loss" in light of the fact that God had mercy on him (vv. 7-8).

When he had to defend his authority to the Corinthian church, the only "resume" he gave them was the one which included his whippings, imprisonments, beatings, stonings, shipwrecks, dangerous surroundings, fatigue, sleeplessness, hunger, poverty, and constant concern for the church (2 Corinthians 11:23-28).

Another New Testament writer, James, quotes Proverbs 3:34, which says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." James also wrote to some people in the church who arrogantly thought they had their lives completely under control, "All such boasting is evil." (James 4:16)

And to those who think that they are "too holy" to fall into sin, Paul writes:

"If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!"(1 Corinthians 10:12)

And now, onto the third charge:

Charge #3: Hypocrisy

Before we get into this, we need to establish exactly what hypocrisy is.

You might think a hypocrite is someone who doesn't live up to the standards he believes in. Everybody has goals they haven't yet achieved, and it not hypocrisy to have unachieved goals.

The word "hypocrite" comes from a Greek theatrical term, which literally means, "to answer from under a mask." A hypocrite is someone who pretends to be something they are not; or more simply, a hypocrite is an actor, a fake, a phony.

(part one: perceived hypocrisy)

If hypocrisy is acting, the whole issue of perceived vs. real hypocrisy becomes a little more complex, because a really skilled hypocrite would be very difficult, if not impossible to recognize. They say that in a good murder mystery, the real killer is the one you least expect. Well, in the game of Christian hypocrisy, the best hypocrites know how to keep up appearances at all times.

If you've met someone you think is a Christian hypocrite, either he or she is not a very good actor, or perhaps you are being too quick to judge.

For example, if you know that a so-called Christian person stole something after they told you that stealing is a sin, that doesn't automatically mean they are a hypocrite. They might be a hypocrite, but they might also have had a weak moment. It is the frustrating fact that Christians aren't immune to doing wrong things; however, they are still fully responsible before God for whatever wrong they have done. AND, whether or not they are a hypocrite doesn't invalidate the fact that what they said is true: Stealing is still morally wrong. Even a hypocrite can speak some very true things.

(part two: real hypocrisy)

In Matthew 23, Jesus expressed his deep contempt for true religious hypocrites. Here are some of the charges he leveled against them:

They give out laws to others, but they do not live by them (vs. 3-4)They love impressive, public religious displays, and being referred to with religious titles (vs. 5-12)They win converts to their own religion, but not to God (vs. 13-15)They re-interpret their own laws in order to suit their own purpose (vs. 16-22)They emphasize minuscule religious details, yet ignore the most important truths (vs. 23-24)They keep the outward appearance clean, while leaving the inside corrupt(vs.25-28)They deny their own sinfulness (vs. 29-36)This is both hypocrisy AND arrogance; none of these should characterize a true, born-again Christian. If they do, you have good reason to doubt the validity of their faith.

Still, it is possible for even true Christians to do some hypocritical things. Paul accused the apostle Peter of hypocrisy when he ate with non-Jews only when Jews were not around to see. Peter was indeed guilty of acting differently when he was in different circles of people; that could legitimately be called hypocrisy (remember, this is the same Peter who said he didn't know Jesus on the night He was crucified). Peter did some hypocritical things, because he was still a morally weak human being; however, this does not make him the same kind of hypocrite as the religious leaders that Jesus chewed out in Matthew 23.

Here's the point of all this: Real hypocrites have existed, do exist, and will continue to exist; but they are more annoying to God than they could ever be to you. And don't forget, even a hypocrite can speak the truth.

In other words, you can't ignore the biblical message just because the messenger is a hypocrite (or weird, or arrogant)!

Logged

"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."-Thomas Szasz

Well, your comment to mine proves, in effect, you're arrogant (to a point), and everyone, even me, have made hypocritical statements at times (and perhaps still will knowingly or unknowingly); however, the smart one corrects such things, and tries not to do them again.

Nam was right and this post does nothing than to further reinforce the arrogance part of his statement. Unless you provide further arguments, his case still stands solid. "I'm right and you're wrong" is not generally considered to be a satisfactory answer.

Unless you believe that you can 100%, surely and irrevocably know your person, and you think three times over what you say/type, you are bound to be even a little hypocrite - in itself this might not be a compliment. A great personality trait is to admit your hypocrisy when it presents itself, if not rectify it.

Nam was right and this post does nothing than to further reinforce the arrogance part of his statement. Unless you provide further arguments, his case still stands solid. "I'm right and you're wrong" is not generally considered to be a satisfactory answer.

Unless you believe that you can 100%, surely and irrevocably know your person, and you think three times over what you say/type, you are bound to be even a little hypocrite - in itself this might not be a compliment. A great personality trait is to admit your hypocrisy when it presents itself, if not rectify it.

I know it does nothing more than further reinforce the arrogance part of his statement, everyone can be hypocritical and arrogant, but it is possible to not be those things. We are all humans, we are not a 'perfect' creation. Some people have humility, but there isn't any way of proving someone is not arrogant over a quick period of time.

Logged

"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."-Thomas Szasz

A confident person will see that others may be stronger, and that they have their own strengths and weaknesses. An arrogant person will often neglect to acknowledge weakness in order to play up their strengths.

Michael Jordan can say that he is the best basketball player that ever lived, simply because he is. His combination of natural talent AND hard work made him the best. Stating a fact, especially when that fact is common knowledge, does not make the person arrogant.

Confidence - The state of feeling certain about the truth of something.Arrogance - Overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.

Nam, opinions are merely opinions. Before posting one, you should check it against facts. Otherwise, you look dumb.

If Michael Jordon stated that he is the best basketball player that ever lived would he have non-biased evidence to show that he is, or is he stating it based on his own opinion? I'm thinking it's the latter. You stating that he is without providing any evidence that he is except for "His combination of natural talent And hard work made him the best" -- which isn't a "fact" but an opinion of yours about him isn't evidence of anything except perhaps he's your idol, or something. It is not "common knowledge" that Michael Jordon is the best basketball player ever. It may be common knowledge that he is considered "one of the best" but not "the best" period.

Your entire comment makes you look like an idiot based on the things in which you state -- but, I think that's what you're going for so I won't smite you for it.

I could care less about smites bro. Karma, on this site, is just people's opinions of what I've said. While having the support of my peers is nice, it is not necessary.

MJ is not my idol... I don't even really like basketball all that much. I used him because he is well known, and fairly current. I suggest that you Google: best basketball player of all time. The evidence, both statistically and from the critics, is overwhelming. Because the statement, Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time, can be verified by so many different sources it is safe to say it as truth. While peoples opinions may be different the truth of the matter will not change. We can continue to argue about MJ, but that's really not what this is about.

What it is about remains the same in principal. Truth is truth, and no one's opinions will change it. Even if everyone in the world believed that the earth was flat (which most did at one point.), it would not change the fact that the earth is not flat.

Nam, I would like to clarify. I do not think your stupid, and I apologize if it came across that way. I believe you to be intelligent, and I have enjoyed your posts so far. The point I was trying to make was if your going to be dogmatic about your opinions, make sure they line up with what has been confirmed as true before posting them. Not doing so will make you appear stupid.

Actually, in my opinion: the one who states they are not arrogant automatically become arrogant by stating such idiocy.

-Nam

That argument is illogical because it is somewhat unrealistic.

Let's say Person A calls Person B arrogant. Person B truly is arrogant, so when they state that they are not, your argument would work.

However, let's say Person A calls Person B arrogant when they are truly not arrogant. Person B states the truth that they are not arrogant. Your argument breaks down here because it calls Person B arrogant for simply stating the truth, which you called "such idiocy."

In order for your argument to work in all cases, everyone accused of being arrogant would have to be arrogant, because their denial of arrogance would only prove your point. That is one of those "heads I win, tails you lose" arguments.

All people (this means atheists, as well) are "weird, arrogant, and hypocrites!" to certain points.

-Nam

Also, if you are going to make a positive claim that everyone is arrogant, you will have to provide sufficient evidence. This would prove to be very difficult, because different people will label someone as "arrogant" in a very subjective manner, and because you would have to prove that every single person who claims they are not arrogant is a liar.

difference between theist and atheist is that they believe or do not believe in god. everything else including their thinking and moral values is exactly same.

If you want to avoid being hypocrite you need to work allot on adjusting your moral code until you turn into nearly amoral personi am not sure If it is even possible to make selfish moral code which is not hypocritical.

I think the most blatant examples of hypocrisy are people who build their careers out of demonizing people for doing what they themselves are doing. The Republican adulterers like Newt Gingrich who condemned Bill Clinton. The anti-gay pastors and activists like Ted Haggard who visited male prostitutes. The ultra-moral family values folks like Rush Limbaugh who are secret drug addicts or child molesters.

The white racists who father kids with black women (was it Strom Thurmond?). Dr. Laura (nude photos on the internet) and Sarah Palin (sex before marriage, unwed daughter with kid) who are all about abstinence--- for other people. Lots of moral family values guys with years-long affairs, abandoned wives and families. Bill O'Reilly's sexual misconduct and harrassment charges. People who work at abortion clinics report that the anti-abortion protestors bring their daughters in for services and then get right back on the protest line, trying to make the other patients miserable.

Hypocrisy that hurts other people--this goes way beyond a person failing to live up to their own standards or failing to attain a goal.

If you eat meat, don't hide it so you can become a paid spokeperson for PETA. That's hypocrisy.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

If you eat meat, don't hide it so you can become a paid spokeperson for PETA. That's hypocrisy.

Ok so you eat cows and love dolphins, Japanese eat dolphins and then you invent fake or unprovable reasons to justify why these animals deserve different treatment to prevent these people from killing them.isn't that hypocrisy?

we can go further until all moral values are destroyed by objective reality.almost any moral value you have is hypocritical.

I suggest that you Google: best basketball player of all time. The evidence, both statistically and from the critics, is overwhelming. Because the statement, Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time, can be verified by so many different sources it is safe to say it as truth. While peoples opinions may be different the truth of the matter will not change. We can continue to argue about MJ, but that's really not what this is about.

I could do the same thing with "The Shawshank Redemption" is the best movie of all time. I could provide quite a few sources that state it's the best movie of all time. But at the same time I could say "The Godfather" is the best film of all time. I could provide quite a few sources that state it's the best movie of all time. They both can't be the best movie of all time, can they?

You have the same problem with Michael Jordan being the best basketball player of all time. I'm sure that I could get many sources and statistical information about the guy who came in second as being the best person of all time just like with the two movies above. That's where your problem lies.

The only way one can actually determine what or who is the best is by doing an un-biased study. Those prone to loving basketball would be biased. Those whose life is basketball (whether they play it or not) are also biased. Out of all the critics you state above on him being the best -- how many of them would you say do not have a bias?

Let's say Person A calls Person B arrogant. Person B truly is arrogant, so when they state that they are not, your argument would work.

You're talking about more than one person. I'm just talking about the one person.

Quote

Also, if you are going to make a positive claim that everyone is arrogant, you will have to provide sufficient evidence. This would prove to be very difficult, because different people will label someone as "arrogant" in a very subjective manner, and because you would have to prove that every single person who claims they are not arrogant is a liar.

I was speaking in general. Do I have to state, in the future for you, that when a statement, as it is written, is me speaking in general?

You're talking about more than one person. I'm just talking about the one person.

The same logic for Person B (or whatever you want to call this person) still applies even if they are "the one person". If Person B states they are not arrogant, when they are, you would be correct. If Person B states they are not arrogant, and it is truth, your generalized statement still doesn't work because it is illogical.

The same logic for Person B (or whatever you want to call this person) still applies even if they are "the one person". If Person B states they are not arrogant, when they are, you would be correct. If Person B states they are not arrogant, and it is truth, your generalized statement still doesn't work because it is illogical.

You're dealing in more assumptions than I am, which is sad. My argument may fail on the basis of me not being able to speak for everyone or as to know everyone, either. But your argument also fails on the same basis. So, your argument, based on that, is worse.

To your last point: if you knew me, as many here do: I consider everything to be idiocy, and everyone to be an idiot.

The same logic for Person B (or whatever you want to call this person) still applies even if they are "the one person". If Person B states they are not arrogant, when they are, you would be correct. If Person B states they are not arrogant, and it is truth, your generalized statement still doesn't work because it is illogical.

You're dealing in more assumptions than I am, which is sad. My argument may fail on the basis of me not being able to speak for everyone or as to know everyone, either. But your argument also fails on the same basis. So, your argument, based on that, is worse.

Nam, I was dealing in logic. If you want to call that "worse," I respectfully disagree.

To your last point: if you knew me, as many here do: I consider everything to be idiocy, and everyone to be an idiot.

-Nam

Is that realistic, Nam? Also, if everyone is an idiot, wouldn't that make you one based on your own opinion? You defeat your own opinion because if everything is idiocy, then your opinion that everyone is an idiot is idiocy. That can't work. Plus, I doubt that you are an idiot. You merely seem pessimistic and cynical. But I can tell that you are probably intelligent.

Nam, I was dealing in logic. If you want to call that "worse," I respectfully disagree.

Your logic is flawed. You're trying to tell me I'm wrong, and this is why but using the same principle I used[1] to back up your statement(s).

I speak of one person who says, "I'm not arrogant." and I say to that[2] that a person who states such a thing, by default, is arrogant.

You come in and use your logic to dismiss my opinion, call it a fact where I didn't, though it may be written in a way that it comes off as it being concluded as a fact[3], perhaps, and I'm the idiot, right?

Quote

Is that realistic, Nam? Also, if everyone is an idiot, wouldn't that make you one based on your own opinion?

Yes, it would. I've referred to myself, and some things I've stated on this website, and elsewhere as being idiotic, and referred to myself as an idiot. Those who have known me on this website since I've been a member, and other websites can attest to me stating such things. Therefore this:

Quote

You defeat your own opinion because if everything is idiocy, then your opinion that everyone is an idiot is idiocy.

...is idiotic 'cause you automatically assume that I'm leaving myself out of it, and not including myself in it.

Quote

That can't work. Plus, I doubt that you are an idiot. You merely seem pessimistic and cynical. But I can tell that you are probably intelligent.

Nam, I merely pointed out the flaws in your logic. So am I illogical for pointing out flaws in logic? You even admitted this: "My argument may fail on the basis of me not being able to speak for everyone or as to know everyone, either."

You come in and use your logic to dismiss my opinion, call it a fact where I didn't, though it may be written in a way that it comes off as it being concluded as a fact[3], perhaps, and I'm the idiot, right?

though if you knew anything about "facts" themselves then you'd know that sometimes facts have nothing to do with logic

So which is it: an argument or opinion? Because you called it an argument where I quoted you above. Also, if what you are saying is illogical, you need to be careful what you call idiocy or whom you call an idiot (even if it is just an opinion), or you are the one who ends up looking arrogant. Do you have any basis for your opinion, are you just navel-gazing?

Yes, it would. I've referred to myself, and some things I've stated on this website, and elsewhere as being idiotic, and referred to myself as an idiot. Those who have known me on this website since I've been a member, and other websites can attest to me stating such things. Therefore this:

...is idiotic 'cause you automatically assume that I'm leaving myself out of it, and not including myself in it.

If I included you in it, it still wouldn't work because you would be an idiot saying everything is idiocy, but that would not necessarily be true because what you are saying may be idiotic if you are an idiot. Jesus H. Christ, this is getting weird.

Why do you feel the need to call yourself an idiot? More importantly, is this conversation going anywhere??? Because if you say that you are an idiot, why should I accept what you are saying, since it might be idiocy?

Nam, I merely pointed out the flaws in your logic. So am I illogical for pointing out flaws in logic? You even admitted this: "My argument may fail on the basis of me not being able to speak for everyone or as to know everyone, either."

Yes. I admit it. I gave an illogical opinion which you assumed was me giving an illogical fact. Do you see how you're more of the idiot, and I'm the lesser idiot?

It's an opinion. If I was going to state it as a fact, then, I'd provide evidence to support my statement to such effect.

Quote

So which is it: an argument or opinion? Because you called it an argument where I quoted you above. Also, if what you are saying is illogical, you need to be careful what you call idiocy or whom you call an idiot (even if it is just an opinion), or you are the one who ends up looking arrogant. Do you have any basis for your opinion, are you just navel-gazing?

An argument can be an opinion. Are you being so idiotic that you're only believing that there's just 1 single definition to the word "argument", which I assume this is the definition in which you're using:

Quote from: Wikipedia

In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something...

When I'm using 'argument', I use it in an opinionated fashion to extract the truth of the subject. Also, I'll call anyone I want an idiot. I may get into trouble for doing so, but, when I see an idiot, I call it as it is; and if I happen to be that idiot, I'll do it to myself, as well.

An argument can be an opinion. Are you being so idiotic that you're only believing that there's just 1 single definition to the word "argument", which I assume this is the definition in which you're using:

Quote from: Wikipedia

In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something...

When I'm using 'argument', I use it in an opinionated fashion to extract the truth of the subject. Also, I'll call anyone I want an idiot. I may get into trouble for doing so, but, when I see an idiot, I call it as it is; and if I happen to be that idiot, I'll do it to myself, as well.

To your question at the end -- exactly!

-Nam

My bolding above. Are you really interested in the truth, Nam? Or just looking right? If your opinion is an argument rather than a baseless positive claim formed while navel-gazing, why don't you provide some logical arguments instead of petty name-calling?

Name-calling aside, it is ridiculous for you to think that you can give an illogical opinion to begin with and expect to be taken seriously at all.

Assuming that's my attention.

Quote

My bolding above. Are you really interested in the truth, Nam? Or just looking right? If your opinion is an argument rather than a baseless positive claim formed while navel-gazing, why don't you provide some logical arguments instead of petty name-calling?

People tend to like the manner in which I argue with people, though, perhaps not the process in which I go by. The way I debate/argue brings certain truths out of other people; bringing truths out of myself, well, those who know me here, know why I am here; I state it all the time. It's not a secret.